Against the subjugation of women? Resist both infighting and selling out
By Heidi Li on December 22, 2008 at 9:30 AM in Democracy, Feminism, Gender Bias, India, Misogyny, Racism
[Cross-posted from Heidi Li's Potpourri]
Disagreements about how to end injustice, and specific injustices, are as old as injustice itself. Whether one is considering the injustices of colonialism, racist domination, oppression of women…in each and every one of these areas, those who can agree in broad general principle have often found themselves disagreeing over specifics, including some major ones. To make common cause does not magically bring about harmony.
When Gandhi fought to escape the injustices of British rule, he was opposed by people who resisted his ideas about throwing over caste distinctions. When Mandela picked up arms to fight apartheid, many withdrew their support from his movement. When King sought to expand his conception of civil rights to include equal access to economic opportunities, former and potential allies turned against him.
None of these examples of fights for justice achieved perfect justice, no more than the Civil War achieved a perfect Union. But I do believe that the U.S. Civil War achieved a more perfect union. Likewise, I believe the India of today is a far more equitable place than the India of one hundred years ago, that the South Africa of today, like the U.S. of today, has achieved within the past fifty years enormous strides toward racial justice.
My own dream is that within my lifetime, I see the progress toward the good of justice for women that Gandhi, Mandela, and King got to see the toward the goods of justice they pursued in their lifetimes. They managed to see results in their pursuits even though each had to learn when to resist pressures from people who genuinely shared their vision and when to resist the lure of becoming subservient to those who offered only short term funding and enrichment rather than truly shared commitment.
Now, even as I write this, millions of men and women are freshly galvanized to make it a reality that all the world comes to see women’s rights as human rights, to see woman as just as much the paradigm representative of humanity as man, and therefore to see a woman’s rights as indistinguishable from any human’s rights. With all that energy comes passion and motivation. But with it comes too friction and infighting. With it too comes the willingness by some to give up the chance to speak truth to power, in order perhaps, to gain power, but nevertheless at the sacrifice of a chance to speak without fear of offending.
I believe that at the end of every day, and at the start of every morning, a person needs to be able to reflect upon herself or himself, and address these questions to herself or himself: if I am fighting for justice, am I making choices that do not compromise my integrity? What can I tolerate in allies even if I cannot join wholeheartedly in every step they take? Can I broaden my toleration without selling out my convictions?
Especially in the fight against the subjugation of women, men and women must ask themselves these questions, because one of the hardest obstacles to achieving progress toward the good of justice for women is the tendency toward infighting on the one hand and selling out on the other. Fighters for the empowerment of women tend to care about all sorts of injustice and obviously have some very basic differences, including differences in sex, race, and class. These differences can lead to fissures and cracks that can render the fight for justice for women, for justice for people, very tough going. But the common interest in justice for all must be used to resist the fissures and to repair them, when possible. What cannot be repaired is selling out. Certainly, one person’s “sell-out” may be another person’s “reasonable compromise”. Personally, I believe in the necessity to question one’s own choices in such matters very closely, because it is very tempting to see oneself as the reasonable compromiser, the unifier, the one who moves beyond “unnecessary” partisanship rather than to recognize in oneself the more natural tendency in human nature toward selling out.
For my own part, I prefer to err on the side of sticking to my convictions rather than losing them in a process of mollification and conciliation. If enough other people join me in those convictions, then they and I will not have to mollify and appease: we will ultimately have coming to us those who would now have us coming to them. We will be numerous enough and bonded together strongly enough in the fight for women’s rights - the fight for human rights - to the point where will we have the upper hand, both ethically and tactically.
For my own part, I would rather take ten million baby steps toward the good without losing my footing in conscience than take a great leap and risk losing my moral compass. I will march with as wide a cohort as I can - even when we disagree on some things - in the name of reaching my goals. But I will not join ranks with those who are able to take heady leaps that gain them a seat at the local powerbroker’s table or a grant of some of that powerbroker’s money at the price of their integrity.
If ten million or twenty million or fifty-one million people choose to baby step along with me and I with them, we will, together, make the same rate of progress as those who choose to go it more or less alone. In the fight to beat misogyny and sexism, in the fight to achieve proper representation and empowerment for women, I expect great changes. I demand great changes. I will work toward great changes. But I know the greatest shifts toward justice take years to accomplish. To stick it out, every step forward must be appreciated and celebrated (e.g. Senator Clinton’s name placed in nomination even at the admitted charade of a free and open Democratic Party convention) and every step backward must be condemned and resisted (e.g. the retention of a speechwriter for the President of the United States of America who participates in boorish, distasteful and sexist party shenanigans.) Time is on the side of those who fight for justice, so long as those who fight for justice do so with patience and tenacity, and resist the parallel temptations toward selling out or excessive infighting.
(Release: November 13)
on sale for only $16.95.
has a spatula.)
8% Off at $11.95, with a rare five-star ranking by 294 customers: 
And check out these: 
("This crazy redhead is on to something. Her pink Rambler story alone is worth the price of the book," writes 
- “Richard Sale’s reportage on Washington, the CIA, the American armed forces, and foreign intrigue has created a perfect background for this account of the steady growth of President Clinton as a master of the game of nations.”--W. Patrick Lang, former head of Middle East Operations, DIA
"Anne C. Heller's stunning biography of Ayn Rand" uses a "plethora of newly unearthed research and fresh insight."
Heidi…it’s time we take back our power. To start, we have to regain our relationships with our inner Moons! (And men can do that with theirs, too!)
We have to stand up even at the smallest slights to our self-respect as human beings. Each of us.
Taking Our Power, Taking Our Lives: Women Under Threat
http://insightanalytical.wordpress.com/2008/12/19/taking-our-power-taking-our-lives-women-under-threat/
The disrespect to the most vulnerable applies not only to women and any vulnerable human being…it also applies to innocent animals. Latest in the series…
3. The Heart of the Season: Weeping for the “Unnatural History” of Chimpanzees
innocent animals?
are you out of your mind?
how very rude
Yes. Taking back our power.
THANKS, HEIDI LI! Your column here is inspiring and makes me want to attend the EMPTY SEXIST SUIT’S INAUGURATION–TO THROW A COUPLE OF OLD SHOES….
Thank you, Heidi. I’m doing the baby steps with you and The New Agenda, which was the only women’s group that spoke out against the sexist frat boy speechwriter! Let’s keep moving forward for women’s rights and against misogyny!
WomenCountPac spoke up too and they did run the ads when even Speaker Nancy Pelosi wouldn’t SPEAK UP…when she did she said she would step in and put an end to it, but it was in favor of Obama.
When women reach a point of power they often think that to hold onto it they must not advocate (they are there to represent ALL) for women, forgetting that WOMEN ARE HUMAN BEINGS TOO, WOMEN ARE CITIZENS TOO!
Just read HEIDI LI’S POST ON MISOGYNY and difference from SEXISM. I can truly appreciate Heidi Li’s perspective and with Heidi fighting for our Fight, we can be sure that The Anorexic Resume President-Elect Oblablabla will be kept on his “women’s agenda’s toes”…There’s a hell of a lot of Old Shoes he’s gonna be thrown if he doesn’t FIRE the MISOGYNIST PUNK LOVER OF HIS, JON FAVREAU (since 2005 close-closeted buddies) The Fraud will invite Rick Warren, yet he has a relationship with Jon Fave for years….SHAME ON OBLABLA….
Count me in as well!
Thanks Heidi!
Yes, Thank You Heidi!
The media is reporting Obama is considering a 850 BILLION stimulus package much of which will go to rebuilding infrastructure i.e. construction work.
Women comprise 46% of the workforce. Will stimulus jobs be available in areas where women tend to work or will women be shoved aside once again?
When the jobs are open, women should show up with their hard hats in hand.
But realistically, women are small minorities in trade programs, apprenticeships, and contracting management. So what is needed is some pro-women hiring incentives inside the minority contracting rules to help right this great imbalance.
Amnesty International: Stop Violence Against Women
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdYhmcVgaYI
Every minute of every day all over the world, women are harassed, attacked and even killed just for being women, daughters, Sisters, mothers, children. It doesn’t have to be this way. Amnesty International is working to stop it. Making a difference is easier than you think. The first step is making your voice heard, make some noise to stop violence against women.Take action at Amnesty Internationals’ website.
http://www.amnesty.org/
……………
Rosa Park’s, act of defiance was her realization that she was a human being deserving of equal treatment under the law, no different than ‘Give me liberty or Give me death’ and with her self-realization the Civil Rights movement was set in motion.
The first step is realizing that we are human beings and as human beings we too are deserving of equal treatment, equal protection under the law and equal representation (the ability to participate in the political process).
Human Rights are Women’s Rights and Women’s Rights are Human Rights…so a wise woman once said.
Before you canonize Rosa Parks, read your history. She was not the first woman who refused to go to the back of the bus; she was the first Secretary of the NAACP sufficiently light-skinned and respectable (read, married) to constitute a bankable test case. Yes, she was brave; and so were other men and women before her.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/rosa_parks_naacp_pawn/
Unfortunately, public interest groups often go shopping for the most sympathetic claimants before bringing test cases. I have seen some really disgusting shopping like that in my time, and it doesn’t always work out so well.
Trolls — stay away.
This is where I personally draw the line — the trolls who intrude and inject their sexism and stupidity.
Woman Voter…thanks…can’t wait till HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON TAKES ON THE INTERNATIONAL STAGE! Since l995 Bejing, when she confronted the Chines officials with:
“Human rights are women’s Rights and Women’s rights are human rights” — let’s send a copy to Oblabla!
Comment by Calypso | 2008-12-22 10:24:37
The media is reporting Obama is considering a 850 BILLION stimulus package much of which will go to rebuilding infrastructure i.e. construction work.
Women comprise 46% of the workforce. Will stimulus jobs be available in areas where women tend to work or will women be shoved aside once again?
*********
Federal regs. set a goal of 6.9% women on Fed. funded construction projects. If you look at road projects, you will see women holding traffic signs and pushing brooms to meet that pathetic goal. The higher pay jobs go the men.
Women truck drivers, equipment operators, surveyors and other non-shovel trades are there, just not so easy to see.
We need more of them visible, also to serve as examples for female children, lest they all yearn to become supermodels and local TV anchors…and set themselves up for disappointment.
Yes. But I will never forget that it was Journalist KATIE COURIC who wrote her first revotionary Feminist thoughts on Katie’s NOTEBOOK telling the truth: that Hillary was bashed by the misogynist media. As result of this, asshole Olbermann named her “worst person of the year.” BRAVO to Katie Couric for her stand. We need to see more female children becoming anchors and conveying the feminist ideal of female empowerment. Not the crap that has made TEENAGE PORN STARS OUT OF NORMAL GIRLS. Watch with revulsion some of hte new ‘popular’ series like “Flavor of Love” where a bunch of young girls COMPETE by engaging in various pornographic pursuits on-camera for the attention of an APE of a man. Hideous and HIllary did speak about the power of hte media and proposed measures to combat this.
Heidi Li’s earlier postings on her site discussed this pernicious influence on the young girls…
But firsts, let’s make sure JON FAVREAU, OBLABLA’S LOVER SINCE 2005, IS FIRED! what a Fraud, and to think he’s invited MISOGYNIST HOMOPHOBE RICK WARREN…
I WOULD HAVE PREFERRED REV. UNCLE JEREMIAH!
Excellent post.
But I would note that so many steps are baby steps taken by one individual that no one even notices.
The woman who is displomatically told that calling the woman who helps clean her house “my girl” is both an afront to a hard-working woman and smacks of times in our history we hope to heal.
The guy who responds to a sexist joke with disdain.
The Mom who is fine with her 4 year little girl old wanting a science kit and not a doll for Christmas.
The dad who insists that as much of his monthly paycheck be put in the girls’ college fund as in the boys.
It all really starts small and locally–in one’s own home and extended family. And it can happen in a thousand different ways.
Tricia Speigel, thanks! It is those Baby Steps that will lead the way to the eradication of Sexism and Misogyny and at least for myself I know I must strive to do better. Politely but firmly I’ve suggested that my niece allow her little boy to adopt a doll as his fave playmate. She was not comfortable, but in the end she let him keep it!
Yes, small steps, but mightly in building a Revolutionary Community Consciousness to help bring down the Walls of Misogyny.
But, sometimes, it may be necessary to stop the talk and throw some shoes….
I’m with you. The hatred of women has never been so obvious and accepted. And it has to become completely and totally unacceptable. I’m with you. Thanks, Heidi, for your leadership.
How about Rick Warren and his wifely “submission” stance?
Thank you Heidi, I am with you. You made me strong with each step you have made. Thanks again.
Wonderful words, Heidi! I needed especially to hear this word: “Unity”. The lack of it made me quite depressed the past week. Thanks for the hope!
Heidi, I know you and I know you will read every comment. WISHING YOU AND YOURS HAPPY HOLIDAYS
Amen, sister. Preach it!! And sign me UP!
Sad to say…But it’s my observation that the biggest recurring obstacle to full equality of the sexes in America is Women…*sigh*
Most really don’t care until they are directly affected and even then in only the most obviously aggregious circumstances. It is at the more subtle levels that the corrosive damage is done culturally…Women are inculcated to accept domination and the consequences of that burden. It’s this Value System that justifies Patriarchy…And it’s global…*sigh*
A Noteworthy Plea…Heidi Li…And an important Cause…
Thanks, Heidi,
You write well and passionately. We are richer for your voice.
The piece of the puzzle for me is why we (women) have not produced our own version of Gandhi, or King, or Mandela? Where is the outrage? May be half the women population think they are incapable, they like being subjugated, they like not to have that responsibility of being responsible for themselves. So they are perhaps rationalizing that their situation is not bad enough.
With Gandhi, King, and others, there was a critical mass, when a leader like Gandhi surfaced that people agreed with him and were willing to follow him and trust him with their futures and join the movement. Two points: 1. lack of such leadership in an analogous situation with women; 2. that some of these women think the situation is not dire enough that even if a “leader” surfaced, they won’t be given that mantle by the majority. Both are interrelated, in my mind, a chicken and egg situation. That women should feel as a unified group that enough is enough and that gives rise to a leader who will become their voice. In that respect, this election was one terribly disappointing ordeal.
One more point about the movement Gandhi and others created. In all those movements, human dignity was at stake. Where as in the Women’s movement majority women don’t look at it that way. Even those that are empowered with education and a career don’t think that some of the treatment they get are undignified. Case in point, this past election and the continuing saga of Favreau, Warren and so on..
I strongly believe it’s because, as opposed to any other “minority”, most women are intricately tied to the “oppressor”. Most women are straight, so they are dating/married to men, raising boys, so even on the most intimate level in our lives, they are connected.
They have no separate sphere in which to be “free” of the “oppressor”, so that affects how much they can “be a group” with others like them. It affects to what extent they can form an “identity” as a group.
If you take blacks for an example, if they choose, they can marry another black, live in a black commnunity, work for a black boss, join a group that is only for blacks, etc. On every level, they cement their identity as a group. Even if they don’t do that on every level, the fact that they can do it on the most intimate level (in the household) solidifies their identity, I believe.
I really believe that because most women are intimately connected to the “oppressor” (no matter how wonderful their individual husband is), it affects their ability to form the same type of group identity as other “minorities”. I don’t believe most straight women are actually “woman-identified”. Their identity many times tends to be very tied into the approval of men, even if they seem “liberated”. IMO.
Just as a superficial example off the top of my head, you don’t see black people wearing certain clothing or taking a certain kind of “black job”, in order to please white people. But many, many women wear shoes that are bad for their back, wear makeup that is bad for their skin, spend ALL kinds of money to be attractive to men, take “feminine” jobs, and learn to psychologically react to events in a “feminine” way - all to please men, so that men will find them attractive and validate their worth.
It’s often unconscious, but it’s there. And that makes for an identity that isn’t very woman-identified, which affects how much women will bond with each other and share a common “identity”, in order to get group power and affect political change. This is not to say that all women should “become” lesbians - but I do think that women’s relation to their “oppressor” is what makes them less powerful than other “minorities” in their own struggles.
Interesting point about the close connection to the oppressor. If you think of the Gandhi example, the oppressors were altogether different and even forcibly elevated themselves from the oppressed which added to the injustice. Hypothetically speaking, say half of the Indians were married to the Brits and didn’t see anything wrong with the second class treatment the Brits put them through, it would have been harder for them to separate themselves out and join Gandhi.
Joan of Arc
Madam Curie
Maggie Thatcher (well, debatable!)
Benazir Bhuto
Katie Couric (her courageous Notebook made history re HRC/media this summer!)
Mother Teresa
Jane Austen
George Eliot
Virginia Wolfe
Hillary Diane RODHAM Clinton
Heidi Li….
Dora Bakoyannis
(Mayor of Athens 2005 World Award Best Mayor)
Hazel McCallion (87 yrs old)
(Mayor of Mississauga, Ontario, Canada, runner-up)
Two great women. Hazel is 87 and runs a City of 3 million! She’s dynamite.
I agree with the sentiments in this post. It is bizarre, however, to see Gandhi cited as an inspiration in ANY discussion of the subjugation of women. The Hollywood Gandhi, maybe. The real Gandhi blessed a political deal that directly resulted in the significant loss of civil rights and protection under law for 20 million women, and their descendants in Pakistan today continue to suffer the consequences of being female in an “Islamic republic.”
Partition was a mistake. Muslims and Hindus had co-existed in India for centuries. There are more Muslims in India today than in Pakistan. The Pakistani government makes it almost impossible for its citizens to visit India for one reason: to keep them from asking why Partition was necessary. It wasn’t. Gandhi had the moral authority to prevent it, and there is plenty of evidence that the apostle of non-violence anticipated the terrible bloodbath that inevitably ensued.
Instead, he went along to get along. We all pay the price today. India is a functioning democracy. Pakistan is the nexus of Islamo-fascism and terror. But women there have paid the heaviest price of all, and they pay it daily. They would be better off by far in India. Thanks to Gandhi more than anyone else, they have moved backward in the long struggle for equality.
This comment makes me angry. If you don’t know something, don’t have historical facts, you should not comment. Gandhi was vehemently opposed and heartsick about partitioning of India. The Muslims demand was so strong that he could not overcome it. Jinnah was a fanatical, egotistical maniac that he wanted a Muslim only state at all costs. The irony is that he was not even a devout Muslim. Gandhi prevented India from becoming a Hindu only state which many wanted as a tit for tat. In fact he gave his life fighting for a secular India. His assassin was a Hindu who did not like Gandhi’s policy of inclusion and who wanted Muslims gone from India. In fact he was depressed about the Hindu-Muslim divide and saw it as a personal failure that he could not bring those two groups together. Jinnah’s greed was insurmountable. It is a testament to Gandhi’s philosophy of inclusion and egalitarianism that so many Muslims stayed back in India.
The most ludicrous line in your comment is “he went along to get along.”
Mohammad Ali Jinnah was the Muslim leader at the time of Independence and the instigator and the driving force behind the partition and he had a good following of his own and they were willing to fight for it with everything they had. Their intention revolted the Hindus as well and Gandhi’s message of a unified India fell on deaf ears as emotions took over. British played their part in stoking the partition idea and a left a long lasting gift called Kashmir. In fact, their idea to colonize India was to divide and conquer from the start.
PM317
“Divide and Conquer” is the mentality and strategy of politicians like Gandhi, Bush in Iraq and middle East and Obama in his own campaign. Divide the women into “Obama” and “NonObama” camps and exploit their Divisions. Meantime, Hillary’s media bashing went unimpeded…
Divide and Conquer–look for signs in a sick body politic and in a household….
Andrew
Thanks! This appears to coincide with what my Indian friend recently said about Ganhdi’s total disregard for children and his well-documnented pedophilia within and outside his immediate family members. I was not aware of his “dark past”.
As long as Patriarchial Society decides the value system of the genders…Females will suffer…imho
There is no simple answer or path to gender parity. We have two major problems (among others): young girls and women today are inundated with sexism from every quarter - including the United States government and its leaders. Let’s face it, sexism is IN.
The second problem is that the organized women’s movement is misguided and now in tatters following the shameful behavior of prominent feminists during the election cycle. Who do we turn to now?
In the early seventies, we accepted that we would never be “given” power or parity by the people (men) in power. Now we have to accept that we will never be “given” power by the people (men AND WOMEN) in power - UNLESS WE STEP UP AND TAKE WHAT IS OURS.
I don’t know when feminists started going along to get along, but it happened. I believe feminist leaders were fooled into believing that once they had made a few advances and brought into the political power loop, it was best to slowly “earn” their rights from the political powers that be.
It will never happen. One has only to look at this campaign cycle to realize how women were being duped.
Almost forty years ago at the beginning of the second wave of feminism, we found that our rights were on the books already. We flew in the face of the establishment by marching into the chambers of federal court judges and demanding that those breaking discrimination laws be penalized, punished or even jailed.
It took less than a year in the major metro city I lived in to change the face of the news desks, fire departments, police departments, classified ads, rape laws - even the airlines had to give up their stewardess mentality. And that was just the start.
Why are we whining about being treated unequally instead of going full bore into the battle to take what is ours? Where are the women’s leaders willing to go toe to toe with the powers that be?
I think a lot of these women got comfortable with their own elevated status and settled for the security. Some women leaders like being the exception instead of the rule and actually protect their singular personal status at the detriment of all other women.
We need a new breed of feminist - more tolerant of diverse feminist views. More focused on forcing the powers that be to abide by constitutional laws already guaranteeing equality with men. Women willing to face the barrage of ridicule and insult sure to come at them from the male establishment.
And we need millions of women who are willing to loudly, vocally and courageously back them up, take the lumps and not run for cover.
How the hell can we accept that women still earn less than men for the same work almost a century after anti-discrimination laws became constitutionally guaranteed? Why was this not a national class-action lawsuit 30 years ago? WTH?
We kind of had the equivalent of a “national class-action lawsuit” 30 years ago with the Equal Rights Amendment. We sure didn’t win.
Maybe you’re right though, maybe a real class action lawsuit that gets to the Supreme Court could encode equal pay for equal work.
The ERA was a political move to codify an already existent right. In fact, opponents actually used the fact that women’s equal rights already existed in the law to defeat the amendment.
Filing lawsuits - or one great big major lawsuit - would be fought in the courts where reason normally prevails a little better than in the purely political realms of Congress and state legislatures - where the ERA was positioned.
Yes a national class action lawsuit. And please get HEIDI LI, she’s a professor of Law and tort specialist. Can’t think of another woman lawyer who’d be vocal and powerful….
Let’s storm the barricades…or should say “Barackades” and DEMAND, not beg, for our RIGHTS.
Women’s Rights are Human Rights. Enough.
Hmmmm….Perhaps because for many Females they are literally surrounded.
You fight it at work…and at home…
It is the last accepted form of Prejudice that is condoned in EVERY FACET OF CULTURE…Even Atheistic Socialist States practice it…The foundation is Patriarchy….And this Clinging to tribal Patriarchy threatens the entire HUMAN SPECIES…
Look a CHINA…and the male to female ratio…
Wonder if Obama should send Rickie Warren to China. There’d be a hell of business converting the necessarily-due-to-overabundance-of-boys Gay epidemic…. And, please, Obblablah, please take Jon Favreau with you and leave him there. Since 2005, Obama’s Jon-boy has beenhis closeted GAY LOVER. China would be a great place for male gays to visit, then?
Meantime, Oblabla has the temporary testo-rush to appoint Jonboy as his Director of Speechwriters! What a transparent ploy.
One thing’s fore sure, Gay or Straight, Men will be men and women-bashers. Don’t look for help but within our own community…Shame, that gay men were behind Obama. Their own interests are being demolished slowly and will be joining the “disaffected women voters” soon….
The biggest obstacle to women’s equality is this dilemma, exemplified by HRC’s condition in this election cycle. Full societal autonomy for women prescribes, the female qua victim of misogyny is entitled to determine how to respond to her oppressor; but by choosing to let him off the hook, she enables him to unleash his attacks on other women.
When a woman is the victim of a violent crime, the parties to the criminal case are the State and the Defendant, because the state has an interest in not only redressing the harm done to this one woman but also ensuring the safety all of its female residents. The victim is the state’s witness in their case.
Comment by pm317 | 2008-12-22 11:54:02One more point about the movement Gandhi and others created. In all those movements, human dignity was at stake. Where as in the Women’s movement majority women don’t look at it that way.
**********
Gandhi, Mandela, King were fighting against “artificial” social constructs; colonialism, Apartheid, “Jim Crow” and once changed, it was irreversible….”sexism”, to varying degrees is present in all societies and “gains” can be easily reversed….It may be the hardest “ism” to overcome.
Good point! Artificial construct that men can do something about. This gender thing and patriarchy is so ingrained for centuries and so insidious that it will take that long as well to eradicate?
[...] stopped packing when I read Heidi Li’s beautiful entry at No Quarter Especially in the fight against the subjugation of women, men and women must ask themselves these [...]
Here’s my response o this beautiful post
http://edgeoforever.wordpress.com/2008/12/22/unity-is-not-just-a-pony/
The “enormous strides towards racial justice” in South Africe seems to have eluded the women (quelle surprise). Huge troubles with rape,violence, and poverty. Maybe it is better for the black guys, but the women there are really lagging behind in rights. What difference does it make whose toilet bowl you are cleaning? 11allafrica.com/stories/2008121200.html
Comment by pm317 | 2008-12-22 13:12:35
Good point! Artificial construct that men can do something about. This gender thing and patriarchy is so ingrained for centuries and so insidious that it will take that long as well to eradicate?
***********
Ingrained for centuries? It is likely ingrained in the human genome, which doesn’t mean that we have to be slaves to human evolution. It just means that intermittent, halfhearted effort won’t accomplish enduring change.
Well, funny you should mention human genome. I read a book written by an anthropologist who talks about a time when men did not know their part in procreation, and put women on the pedestal for giving birth and women ruled. The title of the book is When God was a Woman and the author is Merlin Stone — this is not my area and so I can’t vouch for the book or the author. But made for interesting reading.
Old guys like me should venture into this topic with much trepidation, and I do; but it seems to me that this statement provides much to think about. As far as the “sexism” problem is concerned, perhaps “nurture” must strive hard and continuously to overcome our basic genetic human “nature.” Is that a fair restatement of the problem? Is it true? I don’t know. Are we genetically inclined to patriarchy?
My answer is a strong no, of course not in this day and age. There may have been a time because of whatever reason, certain rigid roles were defined for men and women within a society. I like to think we have successfully addressed such restrictions through role reversals in recent days. But there are not enough critical majorities where it matters that we can come close to addressing patriarchy and its problems.
PM317, I guess the emphasis here is on the word “genetic.” Is there something in our dna which inclines humans to patriarchy, and which must be warred against continuously on a cultural level, because it is currently beyond our power to physically rewrite our gene sequences. If there is such a “patriarchy” gene, we have to know about it, because otherwise we will be unable to fight its effects. I think this is what SHV meant by “we don’t have to be slaves to human evolution.” I don’t know if there is such a GENETIC (as opposed to cultural) configuration, but if there is, we’d best know something about it.
owawa
There’s no “patriarchy gene” unless you adhere to Larry Summers’ “women are born deficient in science….” thesis which is disproven anyway.
The problem of misogyny exists because it is socially condoned and promoted by the media, advertisers and regressive politicians. To even hypothesize the “Patriarcy is innate” is socially myopic–or I should say OBA-MYOPIC!…
SEXISM is LEARNED.
The fact that people keep making this innane remark about this behavior (sexism) is in our DNA (as in inherited behavior) is BULL SH*T.
Sexism is learned behavior.
SEXISM is largely due to the male worshiping religions which are the dominate forms of religious belief in a large part of the world. These male worshiping religions — POPE = Male. Jewish — male dominated. Islam — very much male dominated. These religions have a common root.
This learned culture is very deep — and when “god” is used to justify the second class status of women — who can argue with “god”?
It is kind of the Catholics to give women Mary — but that was probably a way to give something to the older religion which worshiped the goddess.
Sexism is learned — and it is convenient like an old habit.
Women scholars are re-examining the Witchcraze (1400s C.E. +/-) era — during the dark ages when millions of women were murder — supposedly because they were witches. This was when the goddess religion was the dominate belief system in Europe. The “witches” were the healers — this job was taken over by monks. Murdering women to keep other women in their place — has effectively worked for generations (a theory developed by women scholars of the witchcraze era.)
The time has come to rid ourselves of the PATRIARCHY era — and welcome the new era of equality of both sexes.
Destruction of the Patriarchy will come only through education and awareness that sexism hurts everyone. For equality of human beings to occur, the rule of the Patriarchy must be ended.
What we do find in our DNA is both male and female — in fact all fetuses begin as female, until for the males a gene triggers the maleness. (Highly simplified — but the essential facts are there.) I wonder if most guys realize that they began life as a female???
Hmmmm…SHV I suggest you read the White Goddess by Robert Graves if you can find it. There is a big diff between Matriarchal and Patriarchal social groups.
Hi Heidi, nice to see you here and thank you for an excellent post and point about “selling out.” I would rather die than live my live without integrity, principles and honor. I have never had any desire to “follow the crowd” just to fit in. I am my own person, always have been always will be. The problem with equality is many people want to pick which people they want it to go to. The people screaming and ranting the loudest often are the most hypocritical and prejudiced people around.
What is life worth living if we do not live it with honor, dignity and compassion for others. All I know is I can’t control what other people do, only myself. Everyone will be accountable sooner or later.
Comment by pm317 | 2008-12-22 13:34:31
Well, funny you should mention human genome. I read a book written by an anthropologist who talks about a time when men did not know their part in procreation, and put women on the pedestal for giving birth and women ruled.
**********
Way out of my expertise but there was a lot written about the possible role of women in upper paleolithic society based on the discovery of “Venus” figure in the early 20th century.
“I like to think we have successfully addressed such restrictions through role reversals in recent days. But there are not enough critical majorities where it matters that we can come close to addressing patriarchy and its problems.”
I am not sure. It seems that a more “equal” role for women is highly dependent on the “economic health” of the society and the means of production. I think most Americans have been smug about how superior we are compared to other countries when it come to the “role” of women in society. I never thought that but the past year in politics reinforced the idea, for me, that we are at a fundamental level, no better.
Heidi,
I agree with you. We the people need to take back control of OUR government, so they work for us and not their own interests, or big corporations.
Practically all religions are rooted in patriarchy which certainly makes the task of equality more difficult in the political and societal realms. Women are brainwashed by religion to be subservient to one degree of another.
That’s why I advocate taking to the courts to claim our rightful status - and making that a bruising battle if necessary.
Misogynistic men - and the women who support them - are NEVER going to share equal power with women unless it is wrested from their cold, sexist hands.
There will be a backlash of major proportions, no doubt about it. Women have to be ready to withstand the slings and arrows - and boulders - and live through the national pouting until society gets used to the idea of gender parity.
Yesterday I visited Riverdaughter’s site and saw a video there that finally cleared up a lot of the confusion I have felt over the past year. I always knew that corporate America wanted undocumented laborers - not only because what they save on wages and health care, but to suppress the wages of American workers. After watching a video RD has posted I realized that the this past year was a concerted effort to keep women disenfranchised. Think what expense corporate America would face if equal pay for equal work was enforced. Or what would happen to the men’s club if discrimination in the work place, no matter, how subtle was really outlawed.
So Rachel Maddow shot herself in the foot twice.
Actually, perhaps Rachel shot herself in the foot 3 times. She sold out gay rights, women’s rights, and journalistic integrity.
Misogynistic men - and the women who support them - are NEVER going to share equal power with women unless it is wrested from their cold, sexist hands.”
***********
Is “shared power” really power? For me, shared implies that the person/group doing the sharing has the “real” power and can “unshare” at their whim. Real power doesn’t require that anything be given in a gesture of sharing. “unless it is wrested from their cold, sexist hands.” Exactly!!!
PLEASE FORGIVE ME FOR GOING O/T
After being on political blogs all this time, and no
incidents, I have just been threatened with tracking
me down etc. on a NON-political blog by a ‘newby’ who
didn’t like the way I defended a poster who hasn’t
been around for a few months.
He told me(quote) “you should have known that what
you said would piss me off…”, then he sent me a
pmail advising me to get security because of what
happened to a blog owner when the “pissed-off”
poster showed up at the ‘offender’s’ door…….
Now, I don’t scare easily, but I am a disabled woman, 71 years old and I live alone.
I know there is a place to report such occurences.
Could somebody help me with the proper information?
Thank you,
breeze
Try and e-mail No Quarter directly. I’m sure they’ve been through this whole thing before and have answers for you.
BREEZE
Have you sent an email to Heidi Li yet? This is serious!
The Mayor of Paris really gave it to the NYT over the
Caroline Kennedy entitlement issue:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/22/opinion/l22kennedy.html
Turns out the letter was fake. Too bad.
groan
Heidi Li— Thank you. John Stuart Mill and Harriet Taylor would be proud.
Could anyone commenting here please tell me why Harriet Christian parted ways with New Agenda?
I read her letter of resignation but did not understand her references.
Anybody?
Thank you.
Heidi — Here are a few points:
‘Founders of the group were told who they
could talk to or not. People were not allowed to dissent and things were run like a corporation - not by consensus.
‘… couldn’t believe how the New Agenda dealt with the Favreau incident and then totally ignored what happened to BettyJean’s daughter.’
Thank you, Kal.
Just wanted to let people know that I am indeed reading the comments.
Some people here know that I have incorporated 51 Percent a non-profit educational organization aimed at empowering women by eliminating misogyny. I hope to have the organization’s website up by January 15 - it’s legal and financial structure is already organized. The reason I am mentioning 51 Percent is because I hope that as it develops - assuming it develops - it will be at heart of a movement that keeps its eye on our prize: the recognition that misogyny and sexism are social ills that have not yet been treated as the fundamental pathologies they are; that they have to be addressed head on, not in a piecemeal fashion. 51 Percent is for men and women who understand the classical (J.S. Mill-like indeed) liberal commitment to human dignity and who understand that until the dignity of fifty-one percent of this country’s population is fully realized, nobody’s dignity is safe in the face of the powers that work against individual dignity.
Ok, this comment is not just a pitch for 51 Percent. It is an acknowledgment of what various commenters have said upthread: that focus is essential and courage in the endeavor, both at the microlevel and the macrolevel.
I appreciate the feedback on my thoughts here. One must reach out to the world if one wants to accomplish anything for and in the world.
For those who want to learn more about 51 Percent, take a look at the following:
http://tdg.typepad.com/heidi_lis_potpourri/2008/12/introducing-51-per-cent.html
http://tdg.typepad.com/heidi_lis_potpourri/2008/12/51-percent-update-direct-online-donation-available-website-launch-target-date-set-more.html
http://tdg.typepad.com/heidi_lis_potpourri/2008/12/51-percent-organizational-style-more-logo-beta-testing.html
Thank you Heidi….. I am in awe of your accomplishments thus far, and look forward to the future.
Heidi,
Very well written and uplifiting post. Thank you for constantly giving of your intelligence and creativity for fostering a truly democratic and equal socieity..
Misogyny is indeed a patholgy and must be defeated.
A pleasure to read this, Heidi. I like the taking small steps together. There is so much that has to be done for women’s rights, their work opportunities and well being, that there is room for many points of view and ways of doing things. This past election brought new groups to the fore, which was very inspirational.
Beautiful post. And just what I needed, too.
I think part of the problem with fighting sexism - and this applies to racism and anti-semitism and other forms of oppression - is that for the most part we all learn from the same place how one is to behave when one has power. A woman may see herself as oppressed, but when she achieves a certain amount of power, what is her model for behaving as a powerful person? For too many women, that means emulating the behavior she observed when she was powerless. And what you wind up with are some very, very misogynistic women who nevertheless (or naturally) see themselves as not-oppressed.
Likewise, the divisions between lighter and dark skinned African-Americans. Some people who feel empowered express it the only way they ever learned - by lording it over someone else because of their skin color. And so on, with divisions between Jews, etc.
I picked up this idea from an Ursula LeGuin story, as it happens.
Another thought - you’ve really brought up a conundrum - when to stick to one’s guns vs. taking baby steps and building bridges… I think a complicating factor is incomplete or asymmetric information. It is difficult to build bridges when you do know another person’s life experiences and beliefs. So many times we’ve been disappointed by “allies” who are happy to have women’s groups work on their side, but then ditch women’s issues as too ‘controversial.’ As we are seeing happen with Warren and core Democratic constituencies. But on the other hand, allies appear in places you don’t expect….
Ugh. So complicated. So much to do, and so easy to get things wrong.
Its great to be here discussing this subject with such thoughtful people.
Thank you
NinaM
Wonderfully enlightening reason as to why some women who climb up the ladder of success act just like the jerks they had to fight to get there in the first place! We should reactivate their Memory….
Now, if only Hillary had accepted an apology from Jon Favreau rather than firing off a witty yet subjugated letter….
Er, I meant to write “when you *don’t* know another person’s life experiences…”
sigh.
I have no problem with “small steps” toward a goal, but the fight for women’s equal rights is rather unique as goals go. Sexism has been institutionalized in our cultures for centuries. It’s perpetrated in so many subtle ways that even the most experienced feminist can miss the slight on occasion.
Men, as a group, are horrendously threatened by the idea of women as equals on a deep personal level. Corporations are horrendously threatened by the idea of actually paying women what they are worth. Religious institutions are threatened because power over women is such a crucial part of the dogma. A shocking number of women are threatened because they have structured their lives, livelihoods and security on a male-dominance paradigm.
Men, corporations, religious institutions, a huge number of women thrown in - that’s a hellava lot to overcome. That’s a hellava lot of deep-rooted fear to fight.
Small steps are not going to cut it if you want to see gender parity in this century. All you have to do is look at what just happened to “women who dared” this past year. Going up against that kind of vicious misogyny will require a mammoth charge, not baby steps.
Funny how you can read something, and get a totally different take on it.
I’m thinking this is about fractures in the new women’s/puma movement.
What Heidi writes about is to promote unity, maybe the “51 percent” will grow to fill the rift. Some influential bloggers (not at NQ) should take lessons from her and attempt to decrease the infighting- not help it on.
The “selling out” is a little harder- the older you get , the more those
sins accumulate.
Is it selling out to get a press release in the news?
Comment by Strawberrybitch | 2008-12-22 15:23:02
Try and e-mail No Quarter directly. I’m sure they’ve been through this whole thing before and have answers for you.
—————————————————-
Thank you, Strawberry!
Happy Holidays to all!!
Breeze
HAPPY HOLIDAYS to you and EVERYONE AT THIS WONDERFUL, TRULY HOPEFUL NO-QUARTER SITE–OUR REFUGE OF SANITY….
And a wonderful Xmas to HIllary Diane and her family! Thanks for showing us the way all this past year. Your pioneering efforts opened up…Pandora’s Box of Hopes for a NEW HUMAN RIGHTS FEMINISM….
God bless all of you @ No-Quarter! You’re the best!